Check out some similar questions!

student007 · Sep 30, 2006, 05:28 PM

What do you think this statement means: "economic markets are immoral" Here's what I think:

They are objective, and driven only by market forces. That means that they put things like efficiency and profits ahead of humanitarian needs or personal comfort and happiness. In other words, market forces function in a kind of "bubble" where morality doesn't even exist.

What do you think the statement means?

Dr D · Sep 30, 2006, 06:45 PM

That statement had to be made by a dyed in the wool Marxist, who clings to the disproved theories of Karl. Economic Market Forces are dispassionate and allocate resources to their highest and best use. In the short run, individuals are hurt by the movements of the market. In the long term, society as a whole, is better off.

student007 · Sep 30, 2006, 07:02 PM

I'm kind of confused. How would the economy or people in it be worse off in the short run and then better in the long run? Can you give me some type of example to clear this idea up?

CaptainForest · Sep 30, 2006, 07:57 PM

I agree with your assessment on how economic markets don't take humanitarian needs into account, but rather efficiency and profits.

If companies were judged on humanitarian needs, would NIKE be doing as well as they are? With their 3rd world shoe operations, NIKE is the only one that quickly comes to mind, but unfortunately so many companies do it.

Dr D · Sep 30, 2006, 08:57 PM

A classic example of short term harm would be the demise of the horseshoe manufacturer during the advent of the auto age. Captain Forest's excellent example of Nike, shows that thirld world countries are more able to make tennis shoes at a profit than the US. The loss of jobs in the US tennis shoe business forces displaced workers to seek employment in a more technologicaly advanced sector of the economy, that should benefit societyas a whole. The loss of a lifelong job by a breadwinner can be devastating to that family, but that is the way of life.

student007 · Oct 1, 2006, 05:53 AM

Ohh... I think I get it.
How's this for an example? Let's say wal-mart moves into a small town. Short-term losses are unemployment resulting from the closing of small nearby businesses. Long term benefits are:
- greater tax revenue for gov'ts (can spend on social services)
- need to seek more advanced jobs by the newly unemployed
- leads to greater investment and ultimately consumption
- leads to improved standard of living.

I think I'm in the same general boat as you guys. Thanks.